DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Saito discloses a second lens made of a resin so there is no proper motivation to combine the teaching of Tomita with that of Saito. The applicant also states that Tomita’s modification would teach away from Saito. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Saito does disclose the benefits of using a resin material (Saito, Paragraph 0026), Saito also discloses disadvantages of using a resin material (Saito, Paragraph 0028), particularly degradation in optical properties. The prior art of Tomita discloses the use of a glass material, which leads to improvement in optical properties. The examiner believes there is appropriate motivation to combine the disclosures of Saito and Tomita.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al (US Publication No.: US 2012/0176668 A1 of record, “Saito”) in view of Tomita (US Publication No.: US 2024/0411116 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Saito discloses an optical system (Figures 1-12) comprising,
In order from an object side to an image side:
A first lens with positive refractive power (Figure 1, first lens 10; Paragraph 0111);
A second lens with negative refractive power (Figure 1, second lens 13, where Figure 5 discloses a negative refractive power); and
A third lens with positive refractive power (Figure 1, third lens 14; Paragraph 0114), wherein
At least one of the first lens and the third lens is made of chalcogenide material (Paragraph 0118), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.75 < Np - Nn, where Np is a refractive index of the lens made of the chalcogenide material at a wavelength of 0.9 μm, and Nn is a refractive index of the second lens at a wavelength of 0.9 μm (Paragraph 0118 discloses a material of chalcogenide glass, which is known to have a refractive index of 2.5, and Paragraph 0072 discloses a material of the second lens to be polyolefin resin, which is known to have a refractive index of 1.5, which would result in Np-Nn=1, which falls within the claimed range).
Saito fails to disclose that the second lens is made of glass material.
However, Tomita discloses a similar system where the second lens is made of glass material (Tomita, Paragraph 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second lens as disclosed by Saito to have a glass material as disclosed by Tomita. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the optical properties of the lens (Tomita, Paragraph 0078).
Regarding Claim 2, Saito in view of Tomita discloses the optical system according to Claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.75 < Np - Nn < 1.45 (Saito, Paragraph 0118 discloses a material of chalcogenide glass, which is known to have a refractive index of 2.5, and Paragraph 0072 discloses a material of the second lens to be polyolefin resin, which is known to have a refractive index of 1.5, which would result in Np-Nn=1, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, Saito in view of Tomita discloses the optical system according to Claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.6 < Fno < 1.0, where Fno is an f-number of the optical system (Saito, Paragraph 0101 discloses the f number should be 1.3 or smaller, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, Saito in view of Tomita discloses the optical system according to Claim 1, wherein the first lens is made of chalcogenide material (Saito, Paragraph 0118).
Regarding Claim 11, Saito in view of Tomita discloses the optical system according to Claim 10, wherein the third lens is made of chalcogenide material (Saito, Paragraph 0118).
Regarding Claim 12, Saito in view of Tomita discloses the optical system according to Claim 1, wherein a stop is placed on the object side of the first lens (Saito, Figure 4 discloses a stop 12).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Tomita in further view of Kakani et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0003803 A1 of record, “Kakani”).
Regarding Claim 13, Saito in view of Tomita discloses an image capturing apparatus (Saito, Paragraph 0021) comprising: the optical system according to claim 1.
Saito fails to disclose a photodetector configured to receive an image of an object that is formed by the optical system.
However, Kakani discloses a similar system comprising a photodetector configured to receive an image of an object that is formed by the optical system (Kakani, Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to include a photodetector as disclosed by Kakani. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of receiving an image formed by the optical system (Kakani, Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 14, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the image capturing apparatus according to claim 13.
Saito fails to disclose a distance measurement device comprising: a control unit configured to acquire distance information about the object based on an output from the photodetector.
However, Kakani discloses a similar distance measurement device comprising a control unit configured to acquire distance information about the object based on an output from the photodetector (Kakani, Paragraph 0018; Paragraph 0102; Figures 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Saito to include a distance measuring function as disclosed by Kakani. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving various applications such as generating a high resolution map (Kakani, Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 15, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the distance measurement device according to claim 14.
Saito fails to disclose an on-board system comprising a determination unit configured to determine whether there is a possibility of a collision between a moving device and the object based on the distance information about the object that is acquired by the distance measurement device.
However, Kakani discloses an on-board system comprising a determination unit configured to determine whether there is a possibility of a collision between a moving device and the object based on the distance information about the object that is acquired by the distance measurement device (Kakani, Paragraph 0018; Paragraph 0104; Paragraph 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to have a determination unit as disclosed by Kakani. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving autonomous navigation (Kakani, Paragraph 0112).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani in further view of Ha et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0245742 A1 of record, “Ha”).
Regarding Claim 16, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the on-board system according to claim 15.
Saito fails to disclose a control device configured to output a control signal for causing wheels of the moving device to generate braking force in a case where it is determined that there is the possibility of the collision between the moving device and the object.
However, Ha discloses a similar on-board system comprising a control device configured to output a control signal for causing wheels of the moving device to generate braking force in a case where it is determined that there is the possibility of the collision between the moving device and the object (Ha, Paragraph 0086; Paragraph 0109; Paragraph 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to include a braking force as disclosed by Ha. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of avoiding collisions between objects (Ha, Paragraph 0109; Paragraph 0117).
Regarding Claim 17, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the on-board system according to claim 15.
Saito fails to disclose a warning device configured to warn a driver of the moving device in a case where it is determined that there is the possibility of the collision between the moving device and the object.
However, Ha discloses a similar system comprising a warning device configured to warn a driver of the moving device in a case where it is determined that there is the possibility of the collision between the moving device and the object (Ha, Paragraph 0109; 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to include a warning system as disclosed by Ha. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of avoiding collisions between objects (Ha, Paragraph 0109; Paragraph 0117).
Regarding Claim 18, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the on-board system according to claim 15.
Saito fails to disclose a notification device configured to notify information about the collision between the moving device and the object to an external destination.
However, Ha discloses a similar system comprising a notification device configured to notify information about the collision between the moving device and the object to an external destination (Ha, Paragraph 0109; 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to include a notification system as disclosed by Ha. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of avoiding collisions between objects (Ha, Paragraph 0109; Paragraph 0117).
Regarding Claim 19, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani discloses the image capturing apparatus according to claim 13.
Saito fails to disclose a moving device configured to move while holding the image capturing apparatus.
However, Ha discloses a similar apparatus in a moving device configured to move while holding the image capturing apparatus (Ha, Paragraph 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to be a moving device as disclosed by Ha. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of developing an autonomous vehicle (Ha, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 20, Saito in view of Tomita and Kakani and Ha discloses the moving device according to claim 19.
Saito fails to disclose a determination unit configured to determine whether there is a possibility of a collision with the object based on distance information about the object that is acquired by the image capturing apparatus.
However, Ha discloses a similar device comprising a determination unit configured to determine whether there is a possibility of a collision with the object based on distance information about the object that is acquired by the image capturing apparatus (Ha, Paragraph 0109; 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Saito to include a determination unit as disclosed by Ha. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of avoiding collisions between objects (Ha, Paragraph 0109; Paragraph 0117).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights